Skip to main content

About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN2 5
CNN 2
CNNW 2
LANGUAGE
English 19
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)
CSPAN
Jul 21, 2011 11:00pm EDT
of this year and removing the rest of the 33,000 u.s. search wars from afghanistan by the end of the summer in 2012. these reductions are part of an ongoing process of transitioning increasing responsibility for afghanistan security, the afghan security forces, which by 2014 would have leader was on stability for security throughout the country. the chorus which the company says provides a strategy for success in afghanistan. the afghan security forces have increased by almost 100,000 since the president announced the surge in december december 2009.afghan army will expand by another 70,000 security forces by the time all of the u.s. surge forces are brought home by september of 2012. the growing capabilities of the afghan security forces provide the afghan people would want melter of afghan elders have asked eunice and told me that they want the most, which is the ability to secure their own country themselves. having ask you forces in the lead puts the lie to the taliban propaganda that international forces are there to occupy afghanistan. the afghans taken over their own security is the
CSPAN
Jul 14, 2011 12:00pm EDT
services and a surge of combat vets from the iraq and afghanistan wars entering the system, the demand for v.a. health care services has increased dramatically in recent years. this bill provides $58.6 billion for v.a. discretionary funding, $2.3 billion over current funding. the bill also includes $52.5 billion in fy 2013 advanced appropriations for vets' medical care. one of the very few areas in which this bill provides an increase in funding is v.a. medical research, which is $72 million over the budget request to restore funding to the current level. with little room to maneuver on the v.a. side of the ledger, the vast majority of the savings in the bill comes from incrementing or defunding certain military construction projects. the bill provides $13.7 billion for military construction, $1 billion below the request. the milcon reductions in the bill are restricted to the active-duty components. the guard and reserve components, family housing, barrack and other accounts are fully funded at the president's request. every military construction project funded in this bill is authori
CSPAN
Jul 30, 2011 7:00pm EDT
will spend about $150 billion a year on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. nobody believes or hopes that will happen. it has not been requested by the president. no one intends to spend that money. in fact, the president's own budget assumes that instead of the $1.7 trillion that would be over the next decade, that instead we will spend about $600 billion. that's what the president's budget says. that's what people assume. this means that senator reid's proposal to take credit for cutting an additional $1.1 trillion that's not going to be spent anyway is not going to be viewed as a credible proposal. why? because it's money that's not planning to be spent. it's a little like a family saying let's assume we're going to take a vacation we're never nefer going to take and it's going to cost $10,000, and them saying we saved $10,000 on our basketball. i wish it weren't so. i wish the $1.1 trillion was credible spending reductions we could rely on but "the washington post," "the wall street journal," many other observers have looked at this and said frankly it's not meaning a meaningful
FOX News
Jul 31, 2011 3:00am PDT
, that's clear, isn't it? so there he was, he was making his 15th trip to afghanistan and it was while he was over at camp leatherneck that the marines asked him, okay, if there are a bunch of pentagon cuts, how is that going to affect our equipment and stuff like that. and wherever he has gone so far during this particular swing through the country of afghanistan, the troops are saying are we going to get paid? and he's saying, i don't know. just know this whatever you are owed you'll get paid eventually. you know, and this is how this works down. if we do, talking about if we go into a debt ceiling where we can't pay our bills technically which i don't agree with anyway, let's say, the president has the tablt to decide who gets paid when. clearly the debt is going to get paid first. china and saudi arabia are paid before our military, as bad as that sounds, that has to happen, so our borrowing costs don't go through the roof and then pay the military and social security, and if you dodonn tt order, give the department of education money first, it's the president's fault. it's not congre
CSPAN
Jul 28, 2011 12:00pm EDT
, reduced spending on the wars in afghanistan and iraq and through targeted cuts to mandatory spending. it doesn't raise taxes and it doesn't touch medicare, medicaid or social security. again, this is not a perfect plan. i have been on the floor many times in favor of a balanced package that includes cuts to spending, domestic, defense and mandatory, but also includes increased revenues. the reid princess plan doesn't e those goals -- the reid plan doesn't achieve those goals but i hope we will get there eventually. this is not a proposal i would have written, but i'm one of more than 100 members of the senate and more than 535 members of congress, and i don't get everything i want. none of us here in congress get everything we want. that's the nature of compromise. that's the nature of democracy, and that's why the framers of the constitution created checks and balances in government. that's why they created two chambers in congress and three branches of government, and when you're a leader in government, you just don't have the luxury of drawing a line in the sand and walking away.
FOX News
Jul 25, 2011 3:00am PDT
afghanistan is also winding down and that's the trillion dollars they thought they'd save but they don't list anything with the harry reid plan and not to look at entitlements, how could you possibly say we're taking a hard look and making tough decision abouts the future of our -- of the country economically and not look at entitlements when even the president of the united states has had a problem. let's look at john boehner. he says, all right, i'll raise the debt ceiling. this is what i mean by a two phased plan. just a trillion dollars and we'll have $1.2 trillion in cuts by the end of the year. the future cuts will be commissioned and sent up after they commission a bipartisan panel to decide, you know, republicans or democrats to decide which will be cut and what shouldn't. >> and apparently, it would be along the lines of the cut, cap and balance as you can see right there. here is something that speaker boehner said why he cannot support the democrats' plan. he said the administration says they need all of the increase up front so he doesn't have to deal with this until after the ele
FOX News
Jul 26, 2011 8:00am PDT
and be afghanistan. that would raise the debt ceiling enough to get us through 2012, though boehner's would only take us through the end of the year. last night the president and speaker both aimed to put publish pressure on the other. >> there's no symptom of big government more menacing than our debt. break its grip, and we begin to liberate our economy and our future. >> i'm asking you all to make your voice heard. if you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of congress know. >> reporter: enough people did, presumably supporters as well as opponents, that the speaker's web site crashed along with those of a couple of other republicans and at least one democrat. republicans say the president wants a long-term debt ceiling hike to keep it out of his re-election bid. democrats say the bond rating agencies want a long-term hike. a short-term one, they say, would risk a downgrade of this country's credit rating, and that would hike credit interest rates on everyone. jon: the overwhelming number of calls coming into senate offices are urging members to oppose the president's
CSPAN
Jul 30, 2011 2:20pm EDT
of iraq and afghanistan. those costs are coming down. the president had projected they would come down to $50 billion soon and would stay at that the rest of the year, which would mean $1 trillion less spending. remember, we're going to increase debt by $9 trillion to $13 trillion, but $1 trillion would have been the war. by reducing the war costs down, you save a trillion dollars. but that was already in the books. that's already estimated. and so how did they do it? well, they came in and they put in a bill that mandated it to come down because, oddly enough, the congressional budget office doesn't assume the war costs will come down. the congressional budget office assumes that it will stay up and we'll spend this trillion dollars more on the war, when there's no intent to do that. president bush wouldn't have spent that much money. and, therefore, they put it in the legislation and require it to come down to these numbers, and all of a sudden c.b.o. scores a trillion dollars extra savings. well, any change in spending projections or reality at all, speaker boehner didn't count his
CNN
Jul 26, 2011 6:00am PDT
of that is what senator reid calls the winding down of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. that will save a trillion dollars. now republicans have called that a gimmick, a savings from wars that are winding down, even though, by the way, the same savings were counted in some republican budgets. reid's plan would not reform or cut medicare, medicaid, social security. also no changes to taxes. it would raise the debt ceiling by 2.4 trillion dollars. that would be enough to fund the government through next year's election. the boehner plan is considered more short term. it would raise the debt ceiling in two different steps. the first step would happen immediately raising the ceiling by a trillion dollars and spending cuts of 1.2 trillion over ten years. and get us to next year, right some we need a second vote to raise the debt ceiling again by another $1.6 trillion. that second increase would be contingent on more cuts. another $1.8 trillion in spending cuts and have to be agreed to by a bipartisan committee. >> so far, the debt stalemate has been a drag on the stock markets but not as bad as some of
FOX News
Jul 25, 2011 8:00am PDT
and afghanistan. republicans say the markets might not buy that but the same accounting tool was used in the republican budget that passed the house. jon: interesting to that the secretary of state commenting on tkphes particular spending matter. thank you. jenna: the lack of debt deal seems to be one of the factors in the stock market as wendell was talking about. the dow trading down by 60 points . it was down by over a hundred earlier. simon constable is a columnist for the "wall street journal." what is your take? we talk about the reassurance for the market? what about the reassurance for the average investor. >> most of the markets are saying whatever. but the gold market isn't. we've seen gold come up from 1500 a month ago to over 1600 now. jenna: what does that tell you. >> people don't buy golds as a good investment. you have to pay money to have it stored, buy insurance, put it in a bank, with armed guards and people are basically big thumb's down to the u.s. government when they buy gold. you shouldn't be totally reassured. that is quite a move in that sort of short period
CNN
Jul 25, 2011 12:00pm PDT
in discretionary spending. also a lot of money from war money. he's saying as afghanistan and iraq wrap up, there's about a trillion dollars in savings. that's kind of controversial, brooke, because republicans don't count that money. but bottom line, $2.7 trillion all in savings cuts. you might like all them. that's what he's saying. he has a longer term committee in here but it would just make recommendations for long-term reform, really would have a vote on that but wouldn't force those reforms to happen. >> so i want to look at this plan here that you now have. i want to look at what supporters would say and also opponents. from everything i've been reading trying to keep up with all of this, the big difference here from the democrats' side there's no mention of revenue increases, correct? >> huge concession from democrats. the whole time democrats say there must be revenue on the table, republicans say they can't be. now democrats are dropping that huge demand. here is what supporters would say. this plan gets it done. they would say we're out of time. we're in the going to push for all of o
FOX News
Jul 25, 2011 10:00am PDT
eliminating money with the wars in be afghanistan and iraq. that's also future looking. so i'm asking you today in terms of changes to the tax code for corporations because we know there's plenty of corporations that last year ended up paying relatively little or no taxes at all. are you putting forward anything in terms of corporate tax reform that you would be willing to undo in loop loopholes today? is. >> i think we all agree tax loopholes are something we can do about, that's definitely an area we compromise on without any difficulty whatsoever. but the point is putting in a system of tax reform that is simpler, flatter, less cumbersome especially for our business owners in the cost of doing business. so this is what we're looking at. but we are definitely against any tax increases, any tax increases alone. martha: all right, so goldman sachs if they don't get $4 trillion, what happens is a plan that's short of $4 trillion in real spending cuts, they're likely to downgrade their rating on u.s. debt. what do you think about that? >> well, you know, that's unfortunately what we're face
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)